A good article re: dynamic range

[Guest Jeff Colon]

In responding to the thread Re: books etc.  I came across this article that really articulates a lot of the irony I have felt in trying to deliver an optimal signal... knowing it might not be as "optimal"  when released...

http://proav.pubdyn.com/2007January/2007JanuarySoundInsight.htm

this struck a chord with me.

Jeff C

[Jeff Wexler]

Thank you for the link to that article. I found it to be a very clear explanation without being too technical. It does remind me of the fact that so many issues can be explained in purely technical and quantifiable means, but the result in the real world needs to be understood from many different perspectives. I remember as a child playing with the little circular "calculator" my father (and most all cinematographers) had to determine depth of field --- basically, computing f-stop, distance, lumens etc., and this could determine exactly what would be in focus and what wouldn't. What the calculator did NOT tell you was how it would actually look. Depth of field, visually, is a very complex thing, and in photography it is one of the most important concepts as it affects how we feel about what we are seeing. Dynamic range as it relates to our real world experiences, how closely it matches (or does not  match) our measurable dynamic range, is one of the most important concepts in our work. Randy Thom has pointed out so many times how we respond emotionally to the creative understanding and use of dynamic range in movies, but sadly, as the article points out, LOUDER is often believed to be better.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler